| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ulrich Mueller: |
| 5 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, hasufell wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> As discussed on gentoo-dev ML and recently with the QA team, we |
| 8 |
>> have no clear rule/policy about 'gtk' USE flags. Currently there |
| 9 |
>> are all kinds of them: gtk, gtk2, gtk3. That looks inconsistent |
| 10 |
>> to me. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> The council should decide whether to allow: * gtk only * gtk2, |
| 13 |
>> gtk3, ..., but without 'gtk' |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> mixing these two concepts is confusing from a usability POV. I |
| 16 |
>> have no strong opinion on what to do. But we should not do both. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I support adding this point to the agenda. The discussion in |
| 19 |
> gentoo-dev following yesterdays QA decision shows that the issue |
| 20 |
> is controversial, and guidance from the Council is needed. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Ulrich |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
My list of possible decisions is not complete (e.g. is missing the one |
| 26 |
QA is advising), but I guess the situation is more or less clear |
| 27 |
enough to reach one. |
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTBiM9AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzTcoH/0I1dxEGZD4hqZH1s5/b8QSX |
| 31 |
AvBzPWk4toq3BmhmHgutmQ6caJKsj7BzkOfpWGYG4zfNdhc8GfFUnnMj+9zHzbij |
| 32 |
I5EtR8r2zy+siR80QX/Ph/eu6xREAeYhOS/ebzZTNuWjY1McIgKMcyEb9CW0uDk3 |
| 33 |
L9OBdmE7glSLUt+P6vwkuN5/KO/aWwizIs1Jq4yHz5VFFgGswzK4NOJTjGDYtHDz |
| 34 |
9ZKZzcbI4J0YSkD4qwRtYRtD7yHmzuFeC1XrbLO8jNFZ2DSiIJ7XiBqlZhGIS/z/ |
| 35 |
tuBkaY/06+73yt0RICotJcf4QtLbciwNRnX9nkzoTYLCtqa9PXxQQpkYtZvqGN0= |
| 36 |
=q6xv |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives